Dryerman v. Tesla, Inc.
Tesla was hit with a wrongful death and product liability lawsuit on June 23 2025 in New Jersey District Court over a fatal crash that killed three family members in Sept. 2024. The action, brought by Anapol Weiss on behalf of the victims' estates and a surviving son (Max Dryerman, 19), alleges the 2024 Model S sedan had defective Autopilot and self-driving features that failed to prevent collision with a concrete bridge support on the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey. The case is 2:25-cv-11997, Dryerman v. Tesla, Inc. <https://www.law.com/radar/card/pm-58687068-dryerman-v-tesla-inc/> <https://business.cch.com/plsd/DryermanvTesla-Complaint.pdf>
Hinton v Tesla Inc et al (Class Action Lawsuit - Odometer Speedup)
A class-action lawsuit alleges Tesla inflates odometer readings using predictive algorithms to avoid warranty repairs and profit from extended warranties. The suit claims this practice shortens warranty coverage, leading drivers to pay for repairs and prematurely purchase extended warranties. This case, filed in a California federal court, seeks to represent over a million California Tesla vehicles. Case status: The case is seeking class-action status in a Los Angeles federal court. Core accusation: The lawsuit claims Tesla uses "predictive algorithms," "energy consumption," and "driving behavior multipliers" to calculate mileage rather than a direct measurement, leading to inaccurate and inflated odometer readings. Impact on drivers: This practice allegedly causes vehicle warranties to expire sooner than they should, forcing owners to pay for repairs that would have been covered. The suit also claims it encourages drivers to purchase expensive extended warranties. Legal claims: The lawsuit includes claims for violating California vehicle codes, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Tesla's response: Tesla has denied the allegations in the lawsuit. Original Filing.
Nelson v. Tesla (Jack Nelson case)
A Tesla Cybertruck crashed and caught fire. The wrongful death lawsuit alleges that design defects in the electronic door buttons prevented Jack Nelson from escaping from the vehicle. The complaint claims that Tesla was aware of safe alternatives and chose not to use them. Three teens, including Jack, were burned to death within the vehicle. Related case: Tsukahara v. Dixon
NHTSA - Defective Door Handles
Subject: Electronic door handles become inoperative NHTSA investigation: PE25010 Manufacturer: Tesla, Inc. Products: 2021 Tesla Model Y Population: 174,290 (Estimated) Problem Description: Electronic door handles become inoperative due to low battery voltage in the vehicle (12VDC low voltage battery), impeding vehicle reentry. Other notes: There have been several reports of children being locked inside, with parents in some cases needing to break windows to reach them. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2025/INOA-PE25010-18817.pdf
NHTSA - Full Self-Driving Safety
Subject: Traffic safety violations while Full Self Driving ("FSD") is engaged. NHTSA Investigation: PE25012 Manufacturer: Tesla, Inc. Products: All Tesla vehicles that have been equipped with FSD (Supervised) or FSD (Beta) Population: 2,882,566 (Estimated) Problem Description: Traffic safety law violations involving Tesla vehicles operating with FSD engaged, including proceeding through red traffic signals and driving against the proper direction of travel on public roadways. <https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2025/INOA-PE25012-19171.pdf>
Tsukahara v. Dixon (Krysta Tsukahara case; Tesla also a defendant)
The crash: On the day before Thanksgiving in 2024, 19-year-old Soren Dixon was driving a Tesla Cybertruck with three passengers when he lost control, struck a retaining wall and a tree, and the vehicle caught fire. Victims: Dixon, along with passengers Krysta Tsukahara (19) and Jack Nelson (20), died in the crash. The coroner determined the victims asphyxiated in the fire. A fourth passenger survived after being pulled from the vehicle by a friend. Initial lawsuit: In April 2025, Carl and Noelle Tsukahara filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dixon's estate and Charles Patterson, the owner of the Cybertruck and a relative of Dixon. The initial suit sought to obtain information about the crash, as the family felt they were being stonewalled. Investigation findings: A toxicology report revealed that Dixon was driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. However, Krysta Tsukahara's family insists that she was not severely intoxicated and was not physically injured during the initial impact. Amended lawsuit: In October 2025, the Tsukahara family filed an amended lawsuit that included Tesla as a defendant. Allegations against Tesla: The amended suit alleges that design flaws with the Cybertruck's electronic door mechanisms, "armor glass" windows, and stainless-steel doors prevented Tsukahara from escaping the burning vehicle. The family's attorney stated that the death was preventable. Family's goal: The Tsukahara family seeks punitive and compensatory damages but has consistently stated their primary goal is to get answers and hold those responsible accountable for their daughter's death. Related case: Nelson v. Tesla
Banner v. Tesla
Jeremy Banner, 50, was killed when his 2018 Tesla Model 3 was traveling on a Florida highway with the driver-assist system Autopilot engaged. The March 1, 2019, Delray Beach crash occurred when a tractor-trailer was crossing the southbound lanes of US 441 as the 2018 Model 3 slammed into the trailer of a semi-truck, traveled under the trailer and stopped 1,600 feet away. The roof of the Tesla was sheared which instantly killed Banner. <https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2025/tesla-autopilot-crash-lawsuit-jeremy-banner.shtml> https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2023/jeremy-banner-tesla-lawsuit-trial.shtml
Mendoza v. Tesla (Genesis Mendoza case)
Genesis Giovanni Mendoza Martinez was driving his Tesla on a CA highway, with autopilot engaged, when it failed to recognize a parked emergency vehicle in the break down lane, struck the vehicle, and killed Genesis. Img source: https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2025/tesla-autopilot-lawsuit-crash-into-fire-truck.shtml
Pelletier v. Tesla (Sasha Pelletier case)
Sasha Pelletier was driving his motorcycle on a San Diego highway to meet his family for his graduation celebration when a Tesla with Autopilot engaged failed to appreciate Sasha's motorcycle or the traffic which had slowed to a stop, striking Sasha at freeway speed. Sasha suffered severe, life-altering injuries including brain trauma and internal organ damage that he may never recover from.
California DMV vs. Tesla
A significant regulatory case where the California Department of Motor Vehicles has sued Tesla for allegedly using misleading and dishonest brand names for their Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems. Case Details The California DMV filed this lawsuit claiming that Tesla’s use of terms like “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” misleads consumers about the actual capabilities of these systems. The DMV argues that these names suggest the vehicles can operate autonomously when they actually require constant driver supervision. Key Issues Misleading marketing and branding practices Consumer protection concerns False advertising allegations Regulatory compliance with automotive marketing standards Public safety implications of misleading product names Current Status The case is pending with a verdict expected on November 26, 2025. Significance This case could set important precedent for how automotive companies market semi-autonomous driving features and may force Tesla to change how it brands and describes its driver assistance systems. The outcome could impact consumer understanding and expectations of current autonomous driving technology.
Embry v. Tesla (Landon Embry case)
Landon Embry was traveling in his Harley Davidson motorcycle on the I-15 freeway when a 2020 Tesla Model 3 driving in Autopilot failed to detect the motorcycle. Landon was thrown from his motorcycle and died from extensive injuries.
Haidar v. Tesla (Mofazzal Haidar case)
Mofazzal Haidar was driving his 2020 Tesla Model 3 as an NYPD officer directed traffic for a nearby crime scene. While following the officer's instructions, Mr. Haidar's car suddenly accelerated, veered to the right of the road, and collided with a truck. He sustained serious injuries, including to the brain, that permanently impact his life.
In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation (Class Action Lawsuit - Tesla Full Self-Driving)
In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation is a consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that alleges Tesla misled consumers about the capabilities of its "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) software. In August 2025, a judge certified two classes of California drivers and ruled that their claims of misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws could proceed, but dismissed the warranty claims. The case is based on allegations that Tesla's marketing, including statements from CEO Elon Musk, exaggerated the system's autonomy, leading drivers to believe it was more capable than it was. The case is expected to go to trial in 2026. Key aspects of the litigation What the lawsuit is about: The core of the case is the allegation that Tesla falsely advertised its "Full Self-Driving" software as more capable than it was, failing to have the hardware for truly autonomous driving despite marketing claims. Who is involved: The case was filed by several drivers and consolidated into a single class action. The lawsuit was certified to include two classes of California drivers who purchased the FSD package within specific timeframes and opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement. Court's ruling on class certification: U.S. District Judge Rita Lin certified the class-action lawsuit, finding that there was a common question of whether Tesla misled consumers about its self-driving technology. She dismissed the warranty claims but allowed claims based on fraud, negligence, and statutory violations to move forward. Allegations against Tesla: The plaintiffs' claims include violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law, as well as common law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Tesla's defense: Tesla has argued that its disclosures clearly stated the technology was for "driver assistance" and was subject to regulatory approval, and that the advertising was not misleading. Current status: The case is moving forward to the next stages of litigation after the judge's ruling on class certification and the dismissal of the warranty claims. One original case filing (Matsko v Tesla). Judicial order allowing class action lawsuit to proceed.
NHTSA - Autopilot Phantom Breaking
Subject: Unexpected Brake Activation NHTSA Investigation: PE 22-002 Manufacturer: Tesla, Inc. Products: 2021-2022 Tesla Model 3 & Y Population: 416,000 (Estimated) Problem Description: Unexpected activation of braking system may cause rapid deceleration Summary: The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received 354 complaints alleging unexpected brake activation in 2021-2022 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. Received over the past nine months, the reports have often been characterized as “phantom braking” by consumers. Tesla describes the subject vehicles as equipped with a suite of advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features referred to as Autopilot which Tesla states will allow the vehicle to brake and steer automatically within its lanes. The complaints allege that while utilizing the ADAS features including adaptive cruise control, the vehicle unexpectedly applies its brakes while driving at highway speeds. Complainants report that the rapid deceleration can occur without warning, at random, and often repeatedly in a single drive cycle. <https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-PE22002-4385.PDF>
Peter Platt (Class Action) vs Tesla, Inc.
Plaintiff Peter Platt filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The complaint alleges that Tesla collects biometric facial data from drivers using in-cabin cameras without obtaining required consent and failing to establish a data retention policy, in violation of BIPA. Specifically, Tesla uses facial recognition and tracking to monitor driver attentiveness when its Autopilot and Full Self Driving systems are engaged, but has not complied with BIPA's requirements for collecting, storing, and using individuals' biometric identifiers. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief requiring Tesla to comply with BIPA as well as statutory damages for class members. <https://www.scribd.com/document/564761535/Tesla-Cabin-Camera-Lawsuit>
Hendrickson v. Tesla (Steven Hendrickson case)
Steven Hendrickson was driving his Tesla, with autopilot engaged, when it failed to recognize and avoid an overturned semi-truck, striking the truck and killing Steven.
Jackson v. Tesla (Sylvia Jackson case)
Jackson was in a parking lot loading groceries into her parked car when a Tesla, with autopilot engaged, failed to recognize her or her vehicle, the Tesla struck Jackson and pinned her between it and her vehicle resulting in the amputation of both her legs from the knee down.
Brown v. Tesla (David and Sheila Brown case)
David Brown was driving his model 3 with his wife Sheila in the passenger seat, with autopilot engaged, when two spontaneous accelerations caused the vehicle to strike two separate vehicles, burst into flames, killing David and Sheila.
Huang v. Tesla (Walter Huang case)
Walter Huang’s Tesla, with autopilot engaged, veered into a center divider on the highway, killing him.
McLaughlin v. Tesla (Aaron McLaughlin case)
Driver Aaron McLaughlin claims he had both hands on the steering wheel, with autopilot engaged, when his Tesla suddenly and without any warning swerved into a crash-cushion on the median of a Virginia highway in 2020, leaving him severely injured.
Taylor v. Tesla (Douglas Mark Taylor case)
Douglas Mark Taylor (aka Mark Taylor) was taking trash out in front of his home when a 2015 Model S struck him, causing catastrophic injuries including to his brain. Mark died of his injuries in November 2021. The plaintiffs "suspect" that the Tesla may have had Autopilot activated at the time of the crash. <https://bertmartinez.com/teslas-autopilot-faces-new-probe/>
Angulo v. Tesla (Naibel Benavides case)
A Tesla Model S, with autopilot engaged, failed to recognize, and stop at a cautionary light and stop sign at the end of the roadway, continuing off the road and striking Angulo and his companion, Naibel Benavides, who were standing next to their parked vehicle, killing Benavides and severely injuring Angulo.
Liliana Awan v. Tesla Motors, Inc, et al (Dr. Omar Awan case)
The incident: In February 2019, Dr. Omar Awan crashed his Tesla Model S into palm trees in Davie, Florida. He was still alive after the crash. The lawsuit: Awan's family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla, alleging that a design defect in the door handles was the cause of his death. They claim the car acted as a "death trap" and that he could have been saved if he had been able to exit the vehicle. Tesla's response: Tesla has denied the allegations, stating in court filings that Awan's blood alcohol level was above the legal limit The alleged defect: According to the lawsuit, the accident cut power to the car's electronic system. This caused the retractable door handles to fail to extend, making it impossible for Awan to open the door from the inside and for first responders to open the doors from the outside. The outcome: A witness attempted to help, but was unable to open the door. The car became engulfed in flames, and Awan died from smoke inhalation and burns.
Lopez v. Tesla (Gilberto Lopez case)
A Tesla Model S was traveling, with autopilot engaged, at 74 mph when it left a freeway and failed to recognize, and stop at a red light, striking a Honda civic and killing both occupants, including Gilberto Lopez.
Maldonado v. Tesla (Jovani Maldonado case)
15 year old Jovani Maldonado was traveling with his father Benjamin in their Ford pickup truck, when a Tesla, with autopilot engaged, failed to recognize or stop until a fraction of a second before colliding with the rear end of the ford, throwing Jovani out of the vehicle and killing him.
Monet v. Tesla (Jenna Monet case)
Derrick was driving his Tesla Model 3, with autopilot engaged, when the vehicle failed to recognize, and stop/avoid a stationary emergency vehicle in the left lane, striking the vehicle and killing his wife (the passenger) and severely injuring him. Note: in 2023 a jury decided to not find Tesla Autopilot responsible in the crash. <https://fortune.com/2023/11/01/tesla-convinces-jury-autopilot-not-responsible-first-lawsuit-blaming-fatality-technology-trial/> IMG SOURCE: https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2022/tesla-model-3-driver-sues-death-of-wife-indiana-crash.shtml
McCarthy v. Tesla (Kevin McCarthy case)
Kevin McCarthy was a passenger in a Tesla Model S when the driver lost control of the car attempting to avoid a head on collision with an oncoming vehicle traveling the wrong way on a one-way street and collided with a tree. The car burst into flames and toxic fumes were released. Witnesses observed Kevin McCarthy attempting to escape, but the lawsuit alleges he could not get out safely due to faulty door handles. Firefighters removed him from the vehicle after 20 minutes and he died at a local hospital from injuries suffered in the fire. <https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/lawsuit-claims-design-defects-led-to-fatal-2016-tesla-crash>
No cases match your current filters.